[blml] Law 27

[Eric Landau]

On Mar 5, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Herman De Wael wrote:

> Jack Rhind wrote:
>
>> I think it would be best for the TD to take the player who made  
>> the IB away
>> from the table to determine why the bid was made and what  
>> subsequent bids
>> will mean. That way you avoid UI.
>
> No you don't. Not completely.
>
> If you allow a particular correction, this means that the insufficient
> bid had the same meaning.
> If you don't allow the correction (unpunished), then the new bid will
> be natural and also indicate what the first bid meant.
>
> Either way, after the ruling the table will know what the original bid
> was meant to be.

True.  But if the replacement call (RC) meets the (presumed  
interpretation of) the "more precise meaning" test in the new-new  
L27B1(b), knowing what the original bid was intended to mean will not  
provide any information about the bidder's hand not available from  
the RC (hence no UI). 	If we are allowing the call under L27B1(a),  
OTOH, we must have ascertained that the intended meaning was not  
artificial, so that information will be perforce imparted to the  
table -- but that's the same as under the 1997 laws.

> So I don't particularly see any advantage in doing too much to
> withhold the original intent from the table.

There's no reason at all not to expose the intended meaning of the IB  
to the table, provided the TD only does so when he needs the  
information in order to rule (i.e. "goes through" L27B1(a) before  
"getting to" L27B1(b)), as the information can only be of any  
potential use to the NOS (and then only if the IBer's partner winds  
up being barred from the auction and not the dummy).


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net